SCOTUS To Rule On F-Bomb Use

Let's dive straight into the gutter. Can you call your clothing and lifestyle "FUCT" (for trademark purposes)?  For that matter, is it decent to name your restaurant "PHO KEENE"?

Could you get around dirty-word bans on vanity vehicle license plates by using the Roman numerals IV (which sounds like For...) to announce your favorite extramarital activity?

Legal bloggers John Crittenden,   Bobby Ghajar and Rose Kautz writing for Cooley LLP look forward to the US Supreme Court hearing oral arguments as to whether or not the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) may refuse to grant a trademark for "FUCT", simply because it sounds vulgar.

Original article
https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2019/2019-08-scotus-to-decide-if-ban-on-scandalous-trademarks-is-unconstitutional

Lexology link
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=344eb724-448c-494d-8fc9-a0990ed791b1&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-01-10&utm_term=

The Court will hear the case in April, and rule in June.

Adding to the flying smut, Jeff Greenbaum  blogging for Frankfurt Kurnit Klein and Selz PC asks broadmindedly, Is It a "Pho Keene" Great Name Or Is It Offensive?

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=aee1e987-d850-428a-8212-d56ec7ba3a16&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-01-09&utm_term=

Original article  (with illustrations!)
https://advertisinglaw.fkks.com/post/102fctc/is-it-a-pho-keene-great-name-or-is-it-offensive

(Where does one draw the line, when there is a perfectly wonderful tourist destination in Thailand called phuket ?)

For the World Trademark Review, Adam Bobker  pens a comprehensive summary of some of the most interesting goings on, including fake Dyson hair dryers (which can ruin your hair and your day and maybe burn down the house), hologram marks, mary jane in plain packaging, and a "poop shaped" carrying case which Louis Vuitton finds offensive... probably because they call it Pooey Puitton.

Lexology link

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0cf9f2f4-ade4-41f8-9b95-a69e67674aae&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-01-10&utm_term=

Original link
https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/anti-counterfeiting/sweden-allows-hologram-marks-plain-packaging-design-gets-thumbs-and-dyson

Finally, loosely concerned with fakery, rip offs, copyright infringement, and the point of view that "Copyright is Censorship", Chris Castle has a go at the E.F.F.ing people who take lobbying too far.

https://musictechpolicy.com/2019/01/12/europarl_en-explains-article-13-and-googles-fake-lobbying/

All the best, and in the best possible taste.....

Rowena Cherry

PS... if you did not "get" the IV-word, try "IVnick8"   Total red herring. SCOTUS isn't concerned with that.